BRGY. SINDALAN vs.

CA
(DIGEST)
September 21, 2019 by CaseDigestsPh

G.R. No. 150640 (2007)

Velasco, J.
No Unjust Taking of Property

PARTIES:
Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga
Petitioner
represented by Barangay Captain Isamel Gutierrez

Court of Appeals
Respondents Jose Magtoto III
Patricia Sindayan

SUMMARY:
Brgy. Sindalan, through its Brgy. Captain, filed a complaint for eminent domain against
private respondents. The Court did not allow the condemnation of the lot owned by the
respondents because it was proven that the beneficiaries are not residents of Purok
Paraiso of the said barangay but the homeowners of the adjoining subdivision. Thus,
the taking is not for a public purpose.

DOCTRINES:
The power of eminent domain can only be exercised for public use and with just
compensation. Taking an individual’s private property is a deprivation which can only be
justified by a higher good which is public use and can only be counterbalanced by just
compensation.

Without these safeguards, the taking of property would not only be unlawful, immoral,
and null and void, but would also constitute a gross and condemnable transgression of
an individual’s basic right to property as well.
FACTS:
THE PETITIONER
On April 8, 1983, pursuant to a resolution passed by the barangay council, petitioner
Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando, Pampanga, represented by Barangay Captain
Ismael Gutierrez, filed a Complaint for eminent domain against respondent spouses
Jose Magtoto III and Patricia Sindayan.

The subject are parcels of land owned by the spouses and shall be used, when
acquired, as a barangay feeder road for the agricultural and other products of the
residents, and just as inlet for their basic needs. Pending the resolution of the case at
the trial court, petitioner deposited an amount equivalent to the fair market value of the
property.

THE RESPONDENTS
Their lot is adjacent to Davsan II Subdivision privately owned by Dr. Felix David and his
wife. The subdivision owner and the barangay captain, who was known to be an agent
of the subdivision, had proposed buying a right-of-way for the subdivision across a
portion of respondent’s property. These prospective buyers, however, never returned
after learning of the price which the respondents ascribed to their property.

RTC – SAN FERNANDO

Issued Order of Condemnation. Brgy. Sindalan has a right to take the property upon
payment of just compensation.

COURT OF APPEALS
Reversed lower court. Evidence show that Purok Paraiso, which is supposed to benefit
from this expropriation proceeding is in reality Davsan II Subdivision.

ISSUE:
WON the proposed exercise of the power of eminent domain would be for a public
purpose. (NO)

RATIO:
PROVISIONS PROVIDING FOR THE LIMITATIONS OF THE INHERENT POWER OF
EMINENT DOMAIN
(a) Section 9, Bill of Rights: private property shall not be taken for public use without just
compensation.
(b) Section 1, Bill of Rights: no person shall be deprived of his/her life, liberty, or
property without due process of law.
(Note: eminent domain is an inherent power of the state, hence, there is no legal basis
for the grant. The Constitution merely limits the power.)

REQUISITES FOR THE EXERCISE OF EMINENT DOMAIN

(1) Public use
(2) Just compensation

MEANING OF PUBLIC USE

(a) No precise meaning
(b) Public advantage, convenience, or benefit
(c) Anything which tends to enlarge the resources, increase the industrial energies, and
promote the productive power of any considerable number of the inhabitants of a
section of the state
(d) Leads to the growth of towns and the creation of new resources for the employment
of capital and labor
(e) Does NOT depend on the numerical count of those to be served or the smallness or
largeness of the community to be benefited

MEANING OF JUST COMPENSATION

(a) the full and fair equivalent of the property taken from its owner by the expropriator
(b) gauge for computation is not the taker’s gain but the owner’s loss
(c) It must be real, substantial, full, and ample
(d) Not only must the payment be fair and correctly determined, but also within
reasonable time.

ON DUE PROCESS
It is settled that taking of property for a private use or without just compensation is a
deprivation of property without due process of law.

TAKING OF PUBLIC PROPERTY IN THIS CASE IS NOT FOR PUBLIC PURPOSE

The intended feeder road sought to serve the residents of the subdivision only. It has
not been shown that the other residents of Barangay Sindalan, San Fernando,
Pampanga will be benefited by the contemplated road to be constructed on the lot of
respondents spouses.

Considering that the residents who need a feeder road are all subdivision lot owners, it
is the obligation of the Davsan II Subdivision owner to acquire a right-of-way for them.
However, the failure of the subdivision owner to provide an access road does not shift
the burden to petitioner. To deprive respondents of their property instead of compelling
the subdivision owner to comply with his obligation under the law is an abuse of the
power of eminent domain and is patently illegal. Without doubt, expropriation cannot be
justified on the basis of an unlawful purpose.

Public funds can be used only for a public purpose. In this proposed condemnation,
government funds would be employed for the benefit of a private individual without any
legal mooring. In criminal law, this would constitute malversation.

The petitioner’s proper remedy is to require the Davsan II Subdivision owner to file a
complaint for establishment of the easement of right-of-way under Articles 649 to 656 of
the Civil Code. Respondents must be granted the opportunity to show that their lot is not
a servient estate. Plainly, petitioner’s resort to expropriation is an improper cause of
action.

DISPOSITIVE:
CA decision affirmed.
CategoriesCONSTI 2TagsBarangay SIndalan vs. CA case digest, GR No. 150640, J.
Velasco, No Unjust Taking of PropertyPost navigation
BRANDENBURG vs. OHIO (DIGEST)
GANZON vs. INSERTO (DIGEST)